Passed in 1994, California’s “three strikes” law is the nation’s harshest sentencing law. Designed to imprison for life anyone who commits three violent crimes, the law has inadvertently resulted in the incarceration of a lot relatively harmless people, for a long time and at great public expense.
By Jon & Michael Flinner Prisoners are fated to spend their days in earthly purgatory, exiled from society by their own actions in most cases. It can be said that the population behind the walls and fences of the nation’s correctional facilities represent significant destructive forces, and through individual “deeds,” lives and property have been
For the past several months, those of us in the prison litigation realm have watched the battle over prisoners’ voting rights unfold in the United Kingdom and the European Union. Now we enjoy the ability to participate in our own such discussions, albeit not for current prisoners, but former prisoners in California. California state law
By Christopher Zoukis Image courtesy newblackman.blogspot.com
For many years prisoners and their families have bemoaned the exorbitant rates charged by companies that provide telephone services to the incarcerated. Prisoners and their families, two groups chronically economically disadvantaged, have been abused and taken advantage of time and time again when merely trying to stay in contact. This is plainly unacceptable from a prisoners’ rights standpoint and a social morality standpoint, too. But it gets worse. As we delve into the murky waters of prison phone contracts, those who do not yet understand how insidious and extortionate these contracts truly are, will come to demand for change, not for their own sakes or for society’s, but based upon a moral conviction and the desire to help keep families together, a term of incarceration notwithstanding.
The problem with prison phone contracts ironically enough doesn’t hinge on the various departments of corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It isn’t even promulgated by prison phone providers either. The issue, instead, has to do with the awarding of prison phone contracts.
Prison phone contracts are awarded based on a profit share model. Companies such as Global Tel Link agree to charge prisoners and their families high phone rates and to share profits with either the local jail or prison, or the central administration of the prison system. As such, the incentive to lower phone rates is actually reduced. Instead, both corrections’ departments and prison phone providers strive to tack on as many fees and increased prison phone rates as much as possible to increase profits, as has been reported frequently in Prison Legal News and at the Prison Law Blog. Often, these contracts are awarded to the prison phone company which offers the largest kick-back rate. In fact, prison phone companies are known to also give premiums away to encourage contracts. Local jails have been known to receive free booking computer systems. Sheriffs have been known to receive campaign donations. And police departments have received free police cruisers.
Today we have an interesting case out of Malta, where a prisoner is asserting that he is entitled to his full retirement pension benefits even though he is currently incarcerated in a prison. The story starts in 2003 when a man by the name of Paul Hill attempted to murder Victor Testa by repeatedly beating
We here at Prison Education News don’t often have the opportunity to report good news concerning educational and vocational training programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, so today we’re pleased to be able to do so. In an innovative partnership between the Federal Bureau of Prisons, North East Community Action Corp., and the Carpenters
Even in the darkest of nights, the moon gives off a faint glow. The same is true of the world of American corrections, even in Florida’s private prison paradise. This light — and the hope it brings — comes from an unlikely source with an unusual mission: Open Books’ Prison Book Project. The Prison Book
There are many “smart on crime” reasons to reinstate prisoners’ eligibility for Pell Grants and other need-based financial aid. When we look at the benefits of educating prisoners, we see reductions in recidivism, increases in pro-social thinking, enhanced post-release employment prospects, and strengthened ties to children and communities. The list goes on and on. Today,
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), which provides accreditation for medical services in prisons, jails and other correctional facilities, held its national conference in Nashville, Tennessee from October 28 to 30, 2013.
PLN managing editor Alex Friedmann attended the conference and sat in on several presentations that addressed the issue of telemedicine in the correctional setting. Telemedicine involves medical consultations over a remote connection, typically with a patient speaking with a physician or other medical practitioner on a video screen.
The first NCCHC conference session on telemedicine was conducted by Lawrence Mendel, a physician and acting medical director at the Leavenworth Detention Center, a facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America.
According to Mendel, the first prison telemedicine program began in 1978 at the South Florida Reception Center in conjunction with Jackson Memorial Hospital. The use of telemedicine expanded during the 1990s and it is now used in a variety of settings to provide long-distance medical evaluations and diagnoses.
In the criminal justice community, we often hear about recidivism. This is the relapse of former prisoners or probationers back into crime. The reason we focus so much on this topic is that it is a measure of our success. None of us teach prisoners or promote prison reform solely because we find it interesting:
We have profiled every prison within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Learn about each prison’s location, security level, educational and recreational offerings, and much more.
Elizabeth Franklin-Best P.C.
1501 Belle Isle Avenue, Suite 110
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Each case is unique; past results do not guarantee future outcomes or success. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Elizabeth Franklin-Best P.C. is based in Columbia, South Carolina. Mentions of other locations do not imply offices or lawyers there. We collaborate with independent local counsel licensed in their respective jurisdictions.
Elizabeth Franklin-Best P.C. is a private law firm that is not affiliated with the federal government. We limit our practice to cases involving federal courts and agencies.
For specific legal advice, please contact our office directly.
